The Daily News opinion blog

Main menu

Post navigation

A Home Run for the GOP?

I have some thoughts about Diane’s comments tying the housing crisis to Clinton “forcing” banks to make bad loans. During my years in subprime, I don’t recall Bank of America being forced to do anything. I recall companies like my own rising up to do what Bank of America didn’t want to do. Our subprime loan officers made a lot more money than what the prime loan officers made (try comparing $1m a year to $80,000 a year), because Wall Street made a beeline to buy our loans.

Diane, I’d ask you help spell out for me how Clinton “forced” private industry to do anything it didn’t already want to do.

And even beyond that, can you spell out for me how the GOP and the conservative based used their many opportunities (State of the Union addresses, Limbaugh shows, etc.) to warn the nation of what would transpire, during the GOP heyday of 2001-2005? Or even afterward?

I know that a small bunch of them claim they tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie; I don’t believe this minority’s half-hearted efforts to regulate can constitute an “I told you so” to the rest of the nation, given how they claim that regulation is anethema.

And though McCain tried to use a similar argument, do you recall his profuse praise of the men and women of ACORN at an appearance there in 2006? Yes, Diane, political correctness really “can be a b***,” as you say. Of course, the video appears to have been pulled from the Internet, and it never got the play in 2008 that one would think that a media with a “liberal agenda” would give it.

So I’d need more help to understand the idea that this is Clinton’s fault and that the GOP is without blame.

There’s no doubt the Democrats wanted “affordable” housing for people who previously had no choice but to rent. And there’s no doubt that lenders like Bank of America and Countrywide, against their traditional practices, began extending creative loan packages to these same people. But did one cause the other? Maybe. But probably not. I watch Fox most every weeknight (I sometimes flip to the Manchurian Candidates at MSNBC when I need a good laugh), and have yet to see anyone connect the dots.

Here’s what really happened. Due to skyrocketing housing costs, lenders had to extend adjustable-rate mortgages and the like in order to attract business. When the ARMs reset and housing costs suddenly dropped, people could no longer afford their monthly mortgage payments, nor did they have the equity that otherwise could have been tapped into as a means of reducing debt.

But what caused housing costs to soar, especially in California? Land use restrictions, that’s what. Laws cloaked under the guise of historical preservation, environmental protection, and smart growth, so prevalent in California and select enclaves throughout the country, have effectively reduced the supply of land available for development – it’s actually the property costs at issue here, not the homes per se – and in turn raised the costs.

And who promotes such laws? I trust Diane has the answer.

Diane Schrader

That’s just too easy.

And Rob, the whole “blame game” thing is a REACTION. A reaction to constantly being told how “Bush screwed everything up.” It is of course far more complex than that, and I never said no one in the GOP had any share of the blame. (Nor have I ever said that Clinton never did anything productive. Ha ha I feel a joke coming but I’ll let it slide.) HOWEVER … over and over and over again, when you ferret down to the bottom of the problem — some dumb liberal policy is to blame (see land use restrictions, above). Some dumb liberal policy the media ignored. Some dumb liberal policy the GOP ignored. Some dumb liberal policy that counters a sound principle on which this country was based. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. When the ideas are corrupt, it doesn’t really matter how artistically they are or are not implemented. They’re gonna stink up the place.

And we really can’t stop talking about whose fault certain things are… because that would be ignoring history and inviting it to happen again.

Rob Asghar

Diane, by Private Property Rights that are the foundation of this country, are we referring to native Americans or current ones? While liberals can be inconsistent at times (and I’m going to post something this week on that), I can never escape the notion that liberals are more in touch than conservatives with peculiar notion of universal human fallenness, so that they don’t see every act of the ruling class as reflecting God’s perfect light. That’s why liberals free slaves and enact civil rights and fight for worker’s rights when conservatives say, “just buck up and deal with it.”

How many of liberalism’s ideas, precisely, do you believe are “stupid”?

Rob Asghar

>>And there’s no doubt that lenders like Bank of America and Countrywide, against their traditional practices, began extending creative loan packages to these same people.<<
First, BofA didn't become subprime. Second, you need to read what Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide said about subprime to understand that he was an eager prophet of subprime, not someone who felt "dragged" into it.

Diane Schrader

Regarding the last, first… it matters not whether some lending institution felt “dragged” into something or not… the “stupid” idea that we must provide homeownership for people who weren’t ready for it (yes a stupid liberal idea)… that idea was implemented whether the implementers felt compelled or just suggested into it.

So I guess I started to answer the former comment as well. Perhaps I will come back and make a list of stupid liberal ideas. But for now, let’s clarify. Private property rights didn’t exist as a concept on this continent before “the evil white man” arrived. Quite a few of the existing tribes did not even consider the land something that could be owned (like the air), right? But that utterly begs the question. This country DID come into being. It does now exist. And so obviously the private property rights I’m talking about are those that one might consider concurrent with the Constitution that founded this country — a wee bit after the initial landing of the Pilgrims, I’m afraid.

And I think conservatives, at least the Christian ones, are well aware of universal human fallenness. “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) Beyond that, Rob, you are making a huge logical error here, in equating conservatives with the “ruling class.” If you are hearkening back to the Pilgrims and Colonists arriving on these shores, they can hardly be described as the ruling class nor were they really representatives of the ruling class (particularly the Pilgrims). As this country was colonized by non-native peoples, was God’s perfect light reflected all along. Uh, no. Anyway, my point was that private property rights were ONE foundational point, not the only one.

Stupid liberal ideas… well, just today on the USC website for example… some dimwit professor is peddling his view that the “belief that girls and boys deserve equal opportunities but are naturally different” is not so! At least the “naturally different” part is not so. It’s merely a result of years of socialization! Ha ha ha he’s never watched little boys and girls play, has he? So… that qualifies as a dumb liberal idea. And there’s plenty more where that came from.

Rob Asghar

Is the prof saying that girls and boys *are* naturally different? Where would you and he disagree, then?

John Galt

A couple points of clarification. Bank of America did offer subprime loans if, in fact, subprime is a euphemism for non-traditional loan products. All the lenders moved into that space because the market potential became too large to ignore. As for Angelo Mozilo, just one look at the dude and you can tell he’s not playing with a full deck.

Rob Asghar

Pretty funny on Mozilo! Re prime banks like BofA, maybe we can split the difference by saying they moved into Alt-A, not subprime; but here again, I’d say that Wall Street’s carrot was more compelling than Washington’s stick.

Diane Schrader

sorry that wasn’t clear… he is saying that THE BELIEF that boys and girls are naturally different is WRONG. If it weren’t for pesky Barbies and toy trucks, we would all be EXACTLY THE SAME. That’s what he’s saying. LOL